Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 9-26-2025 has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-9 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1, “wherein the slotted connection components are connected, respectively, to the bottom surfaces of the power saw deck feet wherein the pair of saw mounting brackets are mechanically mated to said pair of feet on the undersurface of the power saw deck, thereby mechanically mating the hardware assembly and table component to the power saw,” is indefinite. As best understood ““wherein the slotted connection components are connected, respectively, to the bottom surfaces of the power saw deck feet,” and “wherein the pair of saw mounting brackets are mechanically mated to said pair of feet on the undersurface of the power saw deck, thereby mechanically mating the hardware assembly and table component to the power saw,” are claiming the same structure. As best understood, these clauses are referring to the same structure. It is unclear what the second clause adds, if anything, to the claims. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US 6,477,929 to Gibbs in view of US 5,884,681 to Nickles and US 2019/0039157 to Hanrahan.
In re Claim 1, Gibbs teaches a work product support table (see Fig. 1, #1 ) and hardware assembly configured for being removably mounted to a power saw that comprises a deck (see Figs. 8-9, miter saw #21; see also abstract), the support table and hardware assembly comprising:
a table component (see Fig. 1, #1a, wherein the table component defines a flat top surface, an undersurface, a first end, and a second end (see Fig. 1, #1a has a substantially flat top surface, and undersurface, a first end, and a second end); and
a hardware assembly mechanically associated with the first end of the table component (see Figs, 1-2, #2-5), the hardware assembly comprising:
a table support plate (see Figs. 1-2, hinge plate #2a that is attached to table #1) ) mechanically fixed to the undersurface of the table component (see Figs. 1-2);
a height adjustable leg (see Figs. 1-2, #7-8) associated with ends of the table support plate (see Figs. 1-2); and
a power saw deck comprising at least a pair of feet on an underside of the power saw deck (see Figs. 1-9, miter saw includes feet #29 and deck #21);
a saw mounting bracket (see Figs. 1-2, #2 which contacts the miter saw #21).
Gibbs teaches the table assembly connected to the “side” of the saw. As such, Gibbs does not teach the saw mounting brackets each comprising a slotted connection component parallel to the flat to surface of the table component and operable to be positioned rotationally relative to the table component;
a power saw deck comprising at least a pair of feet on an undersurface of the power saw deck, wherein the pair of feet each have a bottom surface parallel to the power deck saw;
wherein the slotted connection components are connected, respectively, to the bottom surface of the power saw deck feet;
wherein the saw mounting bracket is mechanically mated to said pair of feet on the undersurface of the power saw deck, thereby mechanically mating the hardware assembly and table component to the power saw; and
wherein, the pair of height adjustable legs are adjustable to position the table component at a desired height relative to the power saw deck.
However, Nickles teaches that it is known in the art of power saw to provide connections oriented in a “vertical” direction on the feet (see Nickles, Fig. 1, #34/#34). In other words, Nickles teaches saw mounting brackets (see Nickles, Fig. 1, slotted brackets labeled #34 – see also Fig 5, #34/#34a/#37) each comprising a slotted connection component parallel to the flat to surface of the table component (the brackets taught by Nickles in Fig. 1 and 5 are parallel to the table of the saw) and operable to be positioned rotationally relative to the table component (see Fig. 5, #37 is a bracket able to be rotatably connected);
a power saw deck comprising at least a pair of feet on an undersurface of the power saw deck (see Fig. 1 #10 which have four feet at each corner in which the bolts #34 are inserted), wherein the pair of feet each have a bottom surface parallel to the power deck saw (the bottom surfaces of the feed of #10 in Fig. 1, of Nickles, are parallel to the power deck saw surface);
wherein the slotted connection components are connected, respectively, to the bottom surface of the power saw deck feet (see Nickles, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, # slotted brackets #34 and #37 are connected to the bottom surface of the power saw deck feet);
wherein the saw mounting bracket is mechanically mated to said pair of feet on the undersurface of the power saw deck (see Nickles, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, # slotted brackets #34 and #37 are connected to the bottom surface of the power saw deck feet).
In the same field of invention, miter saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to connect the side table of Gibbs to the saw of Nickles by using the attachment mechanism (including the bolts and nuts, both labeled #34 in Fig. 1 of Nickles an brackets with slots, labeled #34/37 in Figs. 1 and 5 of Nickles at all four corners of the saw) of Nickles. In other words, using slotted brackets with corresponding fasteners at all four corners. Doing so allows the user to use an extending table taught by Gibbs on the device of Nickles without having to drill new attachment points on the side of the tool. In other words, using the know attachment mechanisms and orientation points of Nickles to attach saw accessories would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Modified Gibbs does not teach the pair of height adjustable legs are adjustable to position the table component at a desired height relative to the power saw deck.
Attaching the assembly of Gibbs to the saw of Nickles would not align the surfaces of the table and the saw deck. However, Hanrahan teaches that it is known in the saw accessory art to provide a threaded structure and nut (a height adjustable leg – see Hanrahan, Fig. 7, #156 and Para. 0039) to set the height of the table in the same plane as the saw deck (see Hanrahan, Para. 0039).
In the same field of invention, saw accessories, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize a threaded structure with a nut to set the table height relative to the saw deck, as taught by Hanrahan. Doing so ensures that the workpieces are fully supported on the accessory tables.
Gibbs teaches a single table (see Gibbs, Fig. 1). Hanrahan teaches that it is known to provide an accessory table on both sides of the saw (see Hanrahan, Fig. 1, #106/106). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide two accessory tables, and corresponding attachment hardware, on either side of the saw, as taught by Hanrahan. Doing so allows the user to cut longer workpieces.
In re Claim 2, modified Gibbs, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the table support plate is further configured such that the table component is adjustable to various positions relative to the table support plate (see Hanrahan, a height adjustable leg – see Hanrahan, Fig. 7, #156 and Para. 0039, which allows the table to be a various position relative to the table support plate).
In re Claim 4, modified Gibbs, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the pair of saw mounting brackets are rotationally adjustable (see Nickles, each of the brackets in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, #34/37, have slots #34a/37a with bolts passing through them. The slots are capable of rotation at the axis of the bolt attaching to the saw – see Nickles, Fig. 1 and the bolt attaching to the table – see Gibbs, bolt #5 in Figs. 1-2) ).
In re Claim 5, modified Gibbs, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the pair of saw mounting brackets comprise longitudinal slots (see Nickles, each of the brackets in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, #34/37, have slots #34a/37a).
In re Claim 6, modified Gibbs, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the height adjustable legs are threaded (see Hanrahan Para. 0039 and Figs. 1-12, threaded shaft #156).
In re Claim 7, modified Gibbs, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the table component further comprises a fence that defines a surface that is substantially perpendicular to the flat top surface of the table component (see Gibbs, Fig. 1, #1b).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US 6,477,929 to Gibbs in view of US 5,884,681 to Nickles and US 2019/0039157 to Hanrahan, and further in view of US 5,105,862 to Skinner.
In re Claim 3, modified Gibbs, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the table support plate comprises a longitudinal slot. However, Skinner teaches that it is known in the art of bracketry to provide a slot (see Skinner, Fig. 2, #44). In the same field of invention, bracketry for attaching tables to saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add slots to the bracket of modified Gibbs. Doing so allows the user to adjust the position of the saw relative to the table by way of the position of the bracket (see Skinner Col. 11, ll. 5-39).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,477,929 to Gibbs in view of US 5,884,681 to Nickles and US 2019/0039157 to Hanrahan, and further in view of US, 4,322,066 to Disney.
In re Claim 8, modified Gibbs, in re Claim 1, does not teach further comprising a rabbit component mounted to the fence and operable to slidably move along the fence. However, Disney teaches that it is known to provide a structure (The Disney reference calls it a “fence assembly” #20 mounted on a guide rail #36, which itself is also a “fence”). In the same field of invention, assemblies or accessories used with miter saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the “fence assembly” system that measures the length of the workpiece of Disney to the device of modified Gibbs. Doing so provide provides the user with a device for ensuring that the length of the workpieces being cut is measured easily and accurately so that waste is reduced. In other words, adding this measurement system to a saw provides the user with a measurement tool to ensure accuracy when cutting workpieces.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,477,929 to Gibbs in view of US 5,884,681 to Nickles and US 2019/0039157 to Hanrahan and US, 4,322,066 to Disney, and further in view of US 5,197,365 to Clifton
In re Claim 9, modified Gibbs, in re Claim 8, does not teach a tape measure carriage assembly configured to receive a tape measure such that an end of the tape measure's blade is attached to the rabbit and extendable from the tape measure as the rabbit slidably moves along the fence.
However, Clifton teaches a tape measure carriage assembly (see Clifton, Figs. 1-3, #28b) configured to receive a tape measure (see Clifton, Fig. 1, #40).
In the same field of invention, measurement of workpieces for saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the measurement tape #40 of Disney with the tape measure #40 of Clifton. Doing so would allow the user to remove the tape measure from the assembly and use the tape measure in other areas or for measuring other workpieces away from the saw. This would remove the need for having a second, pocket held, tape measurement device.
Such a combination would provide for a blade of the tape measure (see Clifton #52) may be attached to the rabbit and extended from the tape measure as the rabbit slidably moves along the fence (the tape measure blade #52 of Clifton may be attached to #90 of Disney) and the assembly of Disney, (fence assembly #20), may move along guide rail #36, of Disney).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Hanrahan and Gibbs fails to teach does not teach the saw mounting brackets mechanically mated to said pair of feet on the undersurface of the power saw deck. The Examiner agrees. However, as noted above US 5,884,681 to Nickles slotted brackets for attaching to the feet of a miter saw – see Nickles, Fig. 1)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights